I know the reviewer wasn't overly fond of it but it seams like a really good 80s style rpg. By that I mean lots of crunchy bits but with less of the wacky bits 80s gaming had.

fmitchell

02-04-2009, 02:53 PM

I looked for positive reviews, but apart from one-paragraph "it's really cool" blurbs couldn't find any through Google.

It doesn't sound like my cup of tea -- rules-heavy with a complex and allegedly implausible backstory -- but other people might like it.

Dark

02-04-2009, 03:40 PM

Well I loved the the original Twilight 2000 for five years when I was in the Navy. I played Twilight 2013 a few times it is ok I wish they would have went to the D20 rules which would have made more sense and would have drew more interest.

It kind of reminds me the old Star Wars D6 mindset for blah gaming more of a step backwards than forwards but that's just me I give it a 3 out of 5 stars for game play.

I would recommend Blood and Guts http://www.rpg-resource.org.uk/index.php?article=784&visual=8 if you are looking for a Modern D20 Military Rpg now that is fun.

kirksmithicus

02-04-2009, 05:16 PM

So basically the first review comes down to; "it's to hard. lets all play d20, gloss over the important details and be a bunch of munchkins". LMAO how lame is that review. Sounds like some little crybaby is trying to suck up to WoTC. Stupid fanboys shouldn't be allowed to write reviews.

fmitchell

02-04-2009, 05:44 PM

So basically the first review comes down to; "it's to hard. lets all play d20, gloss over the important details and be a bunch of munchkins". LMAO how lame is that review. Sounds like some little crybaby is trying to suck up to WoTC. Stupid fanboys shouldn't be allowed to write reviews.

Uh, no, if you read the review he also mentions percentile systems (e.g. BRP, WFRP) as another alternative. His complaint, which sounds valid to me, is that Twilight 2013 uses a complicated dice roll (variable dice pool with a variable target number) when a simpler system -- d20, d100, d10, or dice pool with fixed target -- would do. The combat system also sounds like it has a lot of fiddly bits for no adequately explained purpose: tick-based PLUS rounds PLUS initiative rolls PLUS every possible aiming and firing modifier under the sun.

Looking at the reviewer's history, he seems to have a preference for White Wolf, although I didn't note any real trend. He also has 99 reviews. So I wouldn't call him an amateur or a d20 "fanboy". The second review touches on many of the same points.

I guess some people like that much detail and complexity in games. The industry trend, however, is to reduce calculations at the table and simplify or eliminate die-rolling.

Dark

02-04-2009, 07:01 PM

Exactly I for one liked the old GDW set up for rules in fact I loved Dark Conspiracy which was done by the same company. I just found the new rules to be very clumsy and when the rules are clumsy the fun goes out the players grow bored.

kirksmithicus

02-04-2009, 08:00 PM

Of course, here's what happened when I tried to enlist somebody that I played with: They pointed out that the system was too complicated and that they'd use Modern d20 instead. They were more comfortable using a pre-existing system than learning the ins-and-outs of a system that sounded pretty complicated even being described in summary. I don't want to learn a new system, I already know d20.

Waaay back in the day, I used to recommend that game authors use d20 for everything, instead of creating their own system. I've come away from that to a large degree, mostly because of the storm of fantasy settings that used d20 as a hammock instead of as a trampoline, which resulted in a glut of low-quality stuff on the market.I stand corrected, former fanboy who thinks that it would have been a good game if only they had used an already published system instead of wasting there time trying to be innovative. Let WoTC set the industry standard and lets not deviate.

I was initially under the impression that the authors had simply updated the old Twilight: 2000 system to the modern day, but after reading an interview with one of the game designers, (http://trollitc.com/2008/11/interview-with-twilight2013-creators) I found out that it was actually a brand-new system, with plans to release it as a standalone for people who wanted to adapt it to something else. I am not entirely sure that's a good idea. Updating the old system would have been okay, but why create something new? It couldn't possibly compete with what's already out there, so you shouldn't even try.

the basic idea of rolling percentile semes to be a shitload less complicated than shotgunning d20's to hit a single target number.***** because they use a new mechanic, and then turn around and call the system archaic. While at the same time being the one urging others to use an archaic % mechanic. d20 is a % mechanic rounded up to then nearest 5%, very innovative.

This isn't just nitpicking. Twilight: 2000 was a millitary simulation game; it had its roots firmly buried in the ground of simulation, and the world that it took place in was fairly grounded in the real world, written by people who knew what they were talking about.
On the other hand, it's a hangover from the days when games were less social constructs and more these weird amalgams of wargames and simulations. If your GM grew up on White Wolf, then it's going to be a major shift in how he handles stuff that's usually abstracted nowadays. Twilight 2000 is a simulation game fairly grounded in the real world, Twilight 2013 is an amalgam of a wargame and a simulation. Kind of like the original, and they tried to keep that feel for the original fans not for the lets half-ass everything and skim over the details d20 or Whitewolf fans. Guess they should have abstracted that stuff like they do in Whilewolf games. Well buddy, you can't have it both ways, ***** because it should be a simulationist game like the old one and then ***** because it is. It's a major shift for this guy because the only games he knows are happy time social construct, pat each other on the back and everybody feel good about being a munchkin game. It's a game about details, and the details make all the difference in whether your character survives or not.

The game doesn't pick a particular campaign as the default, instead presenting a whole bunch of different options and letting the GM pick - including, weirdly enough, a campaign where supernatural monsters have risen in the aftermath of the apocalypse. The game notes that the Reflex System doesn't support supernatural creatures or magic yet; I should note that d20 has from the beginning. How dare they tell you that you can incorporate magic and monsters into your Twilight 2013 game (never mind that the original had supplemental rules for such things). After all d20 did that first, and before that Rifts and before that Gamma World.

Want to preserve meat? Roll to see how much you're able to preserve from that deer that you shot - or, at least, tried to shoot before the GM got tired of figuring out modifiers and just declared that it was dead. Was this what people did, back in the days before masturbation was discovered? Yes this guy is very professional, 99 reviews or not.

Uh, no, if you read the review he also mentions percentile systems (e.g. BRP, WFRP) as another alternative. His complaint, which sounds valid to me, is that Twilight 2013 uses a complicated dice roll (variable dice pool with a variable target number) when a simpler system -- d20, d100, d10, or dice pool with fixed target -- would do. The combat system also sounds like it has a lot of fiddly bits for no adequately explained purpose: tick-based PLUS rounds PLUS initiative rolls PLUS every possible aiming and firing modifier under the sun.
Well it is a simulationist game, they tend to be a bit overly complicated. The original was the same way, the authors were appearantly trying to keep that alive. Like I said before d20 is a % system rounded to the nearest 5%.

I guess some people like that much detail and complexity in games. The industry trend, however, is to reduce calculations at the table and simplify or eliminate die-rolling.Yep it sure is, "dumb it down" and he is certainly an advocate of that philosophy. If I wanted a dumbed down simulationist games I'd still be playing Basic D&D with guns (I mean Gamma World).

It's a bad review because he contradicts himself repeatedly and because his bias towards non simulationist games is clearly evident. Despite his 99 reviews he is still an amateur because he does not take a professional approach to his work nor does he attempt to rise above his bias or ego. The second review was very helpful and professional in its tone and critical analysis of the game, and I appreciate you posting that for me to read.

P.S. why do I always feel like an ass when I post things?
P.S.S. I can't spell worth a damn.

nijineko

02-04-2009, 10:17 PM

nice break down of the review! really, i almost feel like i don't even need to go read it now. ^^ i find that many of the reviewers (so-called) have a definite bias and prejudice. it got so tiresome that i simply stopped reading the reviews entirely and just read the games in question.

personally i enjoy both rules light and rules heavy games. i get tired of just playing one way after a while. i like to change gears and challenge the mind with a different paradigm. it's like a fresh breath of air to do so.

fmitchell

02-05-2009, 12:02 AM

It sounds like the RPG.net reviewer isn't the only one with an axe to grind.

BTW, simple is not the same as "dumbed down". As I said, some people may like adding and subtracting myriad modifiers, and learning the ins-and-outs of a complex game system. Many of us, on the other hand, have too many other demands on our time to spend an hour resolving a two-minute firefight, and prefer a single d20/d100/3d6/2d6/Xd10 roll per attack, per exchange, or even per battle.

GURPS is one of the poster children of "simulationist" games, yet it somehow scrapes by with a roll-under 3d6 mechanic using as few or as many modifiers as the GM and players can stand. Complex mechanics aren't always the most "realistic"; sometimes designers fall in love with a "cool" die mechanic that is no better than, and sometimes worse, than the boring old standards.

MortonStromgal

02-05-2009, 11:40 AM

The reviewer obviously has no fond memories of 80s crunch but there is lots of good stuff if you read the whole review you can read what he didn't like about it and decided for yourself if you want to play a game where weight is a key factor in combat modifiers. I was telling my wife about it the other day and I said "Its a very polished 80s style RPG, you would hate it". While I appreciate games with that level of detail, I will never run one again. The older I get the "lighter" I like my rules. Though I still may buy it if I have extra cash and let it sit on the shelf.

templeorder

05-08-2009, 01:11 PM

I've not played the new version, but have read the rules. I have played 2000. I don't like the new ones as much. Older style rules seem to me to be more open ended and easier to work with to customize. Really, if you like the old rules, use them, don't worry about innovating or adapting them to something else or D20. Anyone who thinks D20 is innovative is fooling themselves, its been competing with % since its birth forever and a day ago. Truly innovative games innovate mostly on flavor and setting... Many times we take setting and apply older or different rules to them. I've written my own full system and its still "check based"; dice or number generator - thats not innovative. All systems have the same concept - a target difficulty that needs to be checked against. Go with whatever works best for you. Don't be embarrassed if you don't want to learn a new system... gaming is about fun, and thats different for everyone. Personally, i would rather spend my time and energy learning a new world than a system, it would have to be pretty simple or compelling for me. Of course i will say that if you don't learn KAMB (Kobolds Ate My Baby), you're a lame-o. Ha!:)

smokewolf

07-15-2009, 09:39 AM

I won't comment on the two reviews listed previously but I will offer some counter information for digestion.

This is a list of 14 reviews from DTRPG and 1 from Paizo from people who have purchased the system. From these reviews it has received a 4.6 out of 5 rating at DTRPG and a 4 out of 5 from Paizo from those who have purchased, played and are enjoying it.

Also, we do have both combat and character generation examples in our forums. Here's the example of combat (http://www.93gamesstudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1161) the is posted on the 93 Games Studio forums (http://www.93gamesstudio.com/forum/), and here's one of character creation (http://www.93gamesstudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1227).

And here is an excellent writeup of Combat Action from a poster at http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php? using the Twilight: 2013 rules.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=359&highlight=2013

As well as one from the rules writer of the system

http://tegyrius.livejournal.com/98390.html

Also, if all goes well, I've also posted the Stage I rules the other day which should give you a great overview of the system and how well it plays for tactical combat.

You can get it for free until Friday at - http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php?discount=84396 (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php?discount=84396)

richermartyn

10-26-2009, 02:21 AM

hi there...

Firstly I thought that 2013 was too close a year for a setting (and I still believe this but it hasn't caused me any issues). I was also worried by hints from the forum about the background. There was a lot of demonising going on, from Muslims to the French and although the French ARE the bad guys that start throwing nukes around and Islamic countries and terrorists are responsible for a lot of the badness it isn't portrayed in a way that might cause offence, in fact it is very well portrayed.

Richard Littles

10-26-2009, 02:18 PM

I looked at T2013 and I wasn't impressed. It seemed a little heavy handed and ham fisted on the timeline plus the mechanics aren't that great.

Genetic-Jackhammer

10-26-2009, 03:47 PM

i played both twilight 2000, and 2013.. and so far i like 2013 better.. character creation takes a while in 2013, which is the only down side in my opinion. the rest of the rules seem to work well enough for me.

Lucifer_Draconus

01-07-2010, 01:18 PM

I think a big contention for it is the rules are (from what I've heard) fairly different from the original rules. I looked it over & it looked interesting, I did think the military professions are kind a generic. I preferred T:2000 v.2 career structure allowing me to play USMC sniper n' such , though I can say my character is a USMC Sniper in 2013 it's not the same. That said it's really a quibble & not overly important to me. If I wasn't going to be saving up for Alpha Omega I'd get T:2013.